[meatbags]

Why the assumption that Assange sided with Putin? Those of us watching the story closely know that no evidence has been presented of this. Co-aligned interests is not collusion. The source of the DNC leaks remains unknown. It's not even clear whether it was an external actor or a DNC insider.

I feel like the blinding hate for Trump has eroded people's ability to think critically. The Russiagate hysteria is evidence of that.

Edit: I'll soak up the downvotes. Keep em coming.

[jokermatt999]

Did you miss the indictment of the DNC hackers that also detailed the DC Leaks being registered by GRU? You should catch up on that if so.

[meatbags]

I'm aware of the well-timed indictment, despite the fact that the public's mind was made up well before then. An indictment is not a conviction, and its evidence comes from sources (intelligence agencies) that have been proven numerously to lie, fabricate, and falsify evidence for political ends. For context, Mueller was FBI director under Bush and during the Iraq war. Pretend that someone other than Trump won, and now tell me honestly -- do you trust US intelligence agencies and do you find the indictment's technical evidence compelling?

(edit) To bring the point of this post back to my earlier one -- where is the evidence that Assange "sided with Putin"? Siding with someone implies collusion, and mutual interest is not collusion. It implies Assange knew the source was a Russian state actor prior to publishing (whether it was is still speculation).

I apologise if this post seems long-winded and antagonistic, but I feel this is an important distinction that has been glossed over. I see Russiaphobia seeping into close friends who I consider to be rational and it worries me.